Commission discusses possible change to UMC governing‑board conflict rule to allow medical‑school leader a vote
September 02, 2025 | Clark County, Nevada
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Note: The transcript contained drafting and a citation ambiguity in this item and no ordinance change was approved at the Sept. 2 meeting.
Chair Segerbloom brought forward a request to consider amending Clark County Code section 3.74.020, which sets the creation and composition rules for the University Medical Center (UMC) Governing Board, to allow the head of the local medical school to be a voting board member. Currently the code requires appointed governing‑board members to be free of financial conflicts that would trigger abstentions or disclosures under Nevada ethics rules; as a result, the medical‑school leadership has generally served ex‑officio (non‑voting) because the school holds significant contracts with UMC.
County staff advised the commission that the additional conflict restriction was placed in the ordinance in 2013 after a broad consultant review of hospital governance and federal requirements. Staff reminded the board of federal concerns—anti‑kickback statutes and Stark law restrictions—that complicate appointing representatives from entities that have large contracts with UMC. The county’s legal staff suggested the board could consider limited changes but should first ensure any amendment would not create a statutory or federal compliance issue.
Why it matters: Changing board composition could improve coordination between UMC and the medical school, but could raise federal compliance and conflict‑of‑interest issues and may require a carefully‑crafted solution or an alternative governance mechanism (such as a joint coordinating body).
Discussion vs. decision: Commissioners discussed options, including creating a joint body to coordinate the relationship and whether a single voting appointment would be adequate. No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to work with UMC counsel and UNLV to explore options and return with potential language or alternative governance structures.
Next steps: Staff and counsel will coordinate with UMC and UNLV and report back with recommendations; no change to Code 3.74.020 was made on Sept. 2.
Chair Segerbloom brought forward a request to consider amending Clark County Code section 3.74.020, which sets the creation and composition rules for the University Medical Center (UMC) Governing Board, to allow the head of the local medical school to be a voting board member. Currently the code requires appointed governing‑board members to be free of financial conflicts that would trigger abstentions or disclosures under Nevada ethics rules; as a result, the medical‑school leadership has generally served ex‑officio (non‑voting) because the school holds significant contracts with UMC.
County staff advised the commission that the additional conflict restriction was placed in the ordinance in 2013 after a broad consultant review of hospital governance and federal requirements. Staff reminded the board of federal concerns—anti‑kickback statutes and Stark law restrictions—that complicate appointing representatives from entities that have large contracts with UMC. The county’s legal staff suggested the board could consider limited changes but should first ensure any amendment would not create a statutory or federal compliance issue.
Why it matters: Changing board composition could improve coordination between UMC and the medical school, but could raise federal compliance and conflict‑of‑interest issues and may require a carefully‑crafted solution or an alternative governance mechanism (such as a joint coordinating body).
Discussion vs. decision: Commissioners discussed options, including creating a joint body to coordinate the relationship and whether a single voting appointment would be adequate. No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to work with UMC counsel and UNLV to explore options and return with potential language or alternative governance structures.
Next steps: Staff and counsel will coordinate with UMC and UNLV and report back with recommendations; no change to Code 3.74.020 was made on Sept. 2.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
